Drug WarRant

LEAP’s Terry Nelson has an excellent guest column in the El Paso Times: Legalized drugs only way to halt cartels.
Naturally, that’s started the comment thread again — this time the stupids seem to be focusing on #3 (no point legalizing – the cartels will just go into other crime).
I got a great letter from Mark, an El Paso local who gave some helpful insight into the area, including the fact that El Paso has a major drug war enforcement industry there (including EPIC – The El Paso Intelligence Center). This could explain, in part, why so many of the commenters are hard core drug war supporters. As Mark says “It‰s paying the rent & plenty more for a lot of local families.”

Propaganda spoof from the “Dazed and Confused” DVD (running time: 4:20)

Via NORML and D’Alliance
“bullet” January 16 on NBC: Dateline. Hour-long profile on the tragic death of Rachel Hoffman.
“bullet” January 16 at 10 pm (Eastern) (tentative) on ABC: 20/20. Feature on convicted medical marijuana provider Charlie Lynch.
“bullet” January 21 22 at 9 pm (Eastern) on CNBC: Marijuana, Inc: Inside America’s Pot Industry
“bullet” February 10 on PBS: Tulia, Texas
That’s some line-up.

This time delivered by incoming Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in a five minute video.
So, the big question — how did they manage to avoid talking about drug policy this time considering all the top-rated questions that were asked on the subject?

Since there were so many popular questions in so many categories, we tried to pull out some of them that had been addressed previously by the President-elect of vice-President-elect in order to focus the video portion on questions that haven’t been as specifically addressed during the Transition.

And then they listed the marijuana question from the first round and the pathetic answer.

‹Will you consider legalizing cannabis/marijuana/hemp so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?ŠÖDJ C, Chicago, IL
Open for Questions Response, 12/15/08: ‹President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.Š

Yep. That’s it.
Hey, at least they let us ask. And other people got to see the questions. And a lot of people got to see the strength of interest.
They can still dodge it for now, but they won’t be able to forever, and I’m betting that they fully realize it.
Now go pester your Representatives!

Lots of stuff going on and some great stuff to read.
I usually include the Drug War Chronicle in my Friday Open Threads, but I want to make sure you don’t skip over it this week.
The feature article: DEA Rejects Yet Another Rescheduling Petition, But the End Game Lies Far Down the Road is an excellent view of the current efforts to reschedule marijuana, with the recent, but expected rejection by the DEA of Carl Olsen’s petition.
Also don’t miss the open rebellion by Chess players regarding the stupid drug testing rules.
“bullet” Why Head Shop Raids Are Unfair and Unjust at Alternet.

An enlightened mayor might have called the chamber of commerce or invited a community discussion to discuss alternatives. The mayor might have used code enforcement and local ordinances to mandate zoning changes. Instead, he called and asked the feds to do what her own city cops were not allowed to do.

“bullet” Taking the fun out of pot

The lower rate of pot smoking in the Netherlands would certainly seem to indicate that the way to solve our drug problem is to legalize drugs. Soon, even prohibitionists will have to admit this is the case. It is a concept that certainly warrants further consideration.

“bullet” Editorial: Confidence Must Be Restored In Drug Forfeiture Process

While the actions of the local DTF and prosecutor’s office were particularly egregious, the origins of the situation can be traced to the state and the Indiana General Assembly. Legislation governing the handling of confiscated drug-related funds and property is vague, and officials in most counties are unsure exactly how the money is to be handled. With few guidelines, they have for the most part created their own procedures. The fact no money apparently has ever been sent to the designated state education fund is particularly telling.

“bullet” Editorial: No deaths, this time

But Procedures That Make It Hard To Identify Police At The Door Should Be Reviewed […]
Pardon us if we doubt the officers waited even two or three minutes for residents to pull on clothes ( if necessary ), come to the door, ascertain who was there and ask to read the officers’ warrant.
For that matter, wouldn’t the chance of violence have been reduced — in a home where police should have known young children were present – — if someone had simply telephoned the home, explaining police were approaching the door with a warrant … preferably during daylight hours?
Some will say such a procedure would be naive — drug dealers could use the time to flush their product down the toilet.
But no cocaine was found — and a dealer who can eliminate all his product in one toilet flush isn’t really very big-time, is he? […]
The drug war has taught us to accept as “normal” police procedures — even in the case of a man alleged to have dealt quantities of drugs worth only a few hundred dollars — which increase the risk of violence and death in our neighborhoods.
Just as in cases where some jurisdictions have found overall fatalities could be reduced by having ambulances obey stoplights, it is those “standard” procedures that are in need of a serious new review.

“bullet” Commenter Steve Clay thoroughly fisks the latest Ask the White House session by the drug czar (where some of our commenters managed to submit questions)
“bullet” Don’t forget to make sure you’ve voted at Change.org (Marijuana legalization is currently #1 and End the drug war is currently #3) and also at Change.gov’s Open for Questions (where drug policy questions appear to be #2,4,5,6,9 in Additional Issues and 1, 5, 6 in National Security)
“bullet” “drcnet”

The recent comments to various articles in the El Paso story yesterday reminded me of one of the frustrating parts of being in drug policy reform and, well, having a brain.
It’s the incredibly stupid arguments that reappear time and time again.
There are plenty of reasonable concerns expressed, and I don’t mind answering them — how would legalization occur, what kinds of regulation might be involved, would there be more or less damage from drug abuse, etc.
But here are the three that always annoy me:
1. Legalized drugs would be great for the cartels./If you’re a legalizer, you’re probably getting donations from the cartels./Legalization will profit the criminals.
I realize the cognitive dissonance at work here. They’re thinking: Drug war=stopping cartels; therefore legalization=anti-drug-war=good for the cartels=profit. Of course, there’s a lot of faulty logic there, but it keeps them from actually thinking through logically what would happen to cartels in a legalized market.
It’s funny to imagine, actually. Think about a legal market in marijuana in the United States, with companies growing it, packaging it, selling it in stores and imagine a Mexican cartel trying to compete with that financially.
2. Why don’t you legalize murder and rape while you’re at it?
This one really bothers me and I don’t yet have the best quick response, largely because it’s so amazingly stupid that it requires a lot of remedial explanations to bring the person up to the level of sentience. And I find myself wanting to simply say: “No. You have the brains of a rock.” Which is petty, even if true.
One quick response often used is that drugs are a choice of the user and only affect the user, while murder and rape are actions that infringe on others. Then the moron responds that drugs do so affect others because druggies beat up people and steal, and… And then you have to explain that the drugs don’t do that – and that we arrest people who beat up people regardless of whether they’re on drugs, but by then you’ve lost everyone’s attention. It doesn’t matter that any basic understanding of natural and Constitutional rights would empirically know that there’s no comparison between drug use and murder/rape, but explaining that?
Another response is to note that if you arrest a dealer, it just creates a job opening for another drug dealer, while that isn’t true for murderer or rape. While true, this usually just confuses them.
If anyone has a good, solid, concise response for this one, I’d love to hear it.
3. Legalization won’t solve anything. The cartels aren’t going to go away and we’ll still have all that crime and violence.
This one I actually find rather funny in its blissful naivetÚ. I mean sure, they understand that violent criminals won’t suddenly become choir boys, but they seem to forget that without the drug profits, they’ll have a hard time recruiting new cartel members.
Howard Wooldridge gave a great answer to this one in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday:

Ronald Shafer (Letters, Dec. 30) worries about what drug dealers would do without their prohibition-generated jobs. The one million teens who sell drugs would begin flipping burgers and mowing yards. Serious thugs will rob banks where we will capture or kill them. Or was Mr. Shafer suggesting to continue prohibition as a jobs program for bad guys?

Exactly.
So what are the stupid arguments that drive you up the wall?

In October, DC Metro began a random search program without public input. Flex Your Rights stepped up and started passing out flyers at subway stations informing people of their rights not to consent to a search, and got a lot of positive media coverage. In the next month, Metro refused to debate the policy and has been challenged by the Riders Advisory Council to come up with justification for their policy.
Backed in to a corner with no justification and bad publicity, what does Metro decide to do?
Threatens to sue Flex Your Rights for using the “M” logo (yes, the one shown in this post) on their information flyer.

A must read from Bill Tilney, the former Mayor of El Paso, Texas: Former mayor to City Council: Stay the course on drug resolution

Kudos to city Rep. Beto O’Rourke for the courage he showed in proposing an amendment to the resolution expressing support for Ciudad Juarez. Mr. O’Rourke’s efforts demonstrated that he, along with brave members of the El Paso City Council, have an understanding of what is tragically unfolding in the Paso del Norte region. In a sense, they are on the cutting edge of what is needed to change the direction we are going in our 40 year long “war on drugs.” We may be far from Washington, but there is no reason why an honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics shouldn’t begin here along the Rio Grande. […]
The American people should be questioning the federal government’s policies as to how we deal with drug trafficking. Will we continue to witness our neighbor to the south become a “failed state” because of the American insatiable demand for drugs? Will we continue to see budgets and numbers balloon as we throw money at this obscene problem? When will we have a president who has the “huevos” to say “enough” to this macabre dance along the border?
As a side note, I would like to point out that if we didn’t have this failed “war on drugs,” the quality of life could improve along the border. Global manufacturing would be more efficient and productive. At the same time, we would be more competitive on the global stage. […]
As a final note, I want to say bravo to the brave band of City Council representatives for putting forth the resolution. I am sure they have been subjected to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” Nevertheless, now that you have gained the attention of the national media, don’t drop the ball.

Read the whole thing. It’s really outstanding.

Link

“Calder÷n must Ö and will Ö keep the pressure on the cartels, but look, let’s not be naâve: There will be more violence, more blood, and, yes, things will get worse before they get better. That’s the nature of the battle,” [U.S. Ambassador Tony]Garza said. “The more pressure the cartels feel, the more they’ll lash out like cornered animals.”

Good thing we’re not discussing any other options, since this drug war thing is going so well.

This is a follow-up to today’s earlier post about the El Paso, Texas City Council resolution.
Now it’s looking like the veto may not hold

The city‰s Committee on Border Relations refused to give Mayor John Cook the support he requested Tuesday for vetoing a resolution the council had approved with an amendment calling for a debate on drug legalization.
Next week‰s City Council agenda is likely to include an item calling for the override of the veto, which would take seven votes by the nine-member council.

Should be interesting.
Meanwhile… sigh… I’ve been following the discussion in comments at the El Paso Times, which has ranged all over the place (with some familiar friends chipping in to inject some reason). Some of the negative comments are… well… beyond belief.
So in a kind of perverted sense of agonizing fun, I’ve decided to share some of them with you.
Remember, the City Council merely passed a resolution calling for the U.S. government start an “open, honest, national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics.” They didn’t call for legalization. They didn’t come out in favor of legalization. They came out in favor of… discussion.
Here are some of the reactions from the good readers of the El Paso Times.

This city council should be removed for advocating violations of law. They have taken an oath to uphold the law, not use these offices in an attempt to overthrow it.
The Texas Attorney General should conduct an investigation to determine that nature of their conduct, if any criminal statutes have been violated.

Criminal statutes against advocating discussion?
Here are some more…

We can just legalize murder and kidnapping too while we’re at it. Then all of Mexico’s problems will be solved… Idiots! […]
If the Mexican government can’t solve it’s own problems how are they going to solve ours by telling us what laws to pass and that are in favor of legalizing drugs. […]
City Council members? What a bunch of idiots!! Pure stupidty and cowardice. Legalizing drugs is not the answer. Get tough now – enforce the laws we have now. No mercy. […]
I say make it as in other countries, death for drug dealers. If you deal drugs which is just another name for death then you die. This is weather you are a citizen or not. That would save us from multiple invasions from the same dealer. You get caught dealing or smuggling drugs then you die. […]
And yes, need to have the DEATH penalty for drug dealers, just like China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many others. Then stand back and watch the drug wars calm down. Just start executing these doper ***HOLES. […]
Drug market has been reduced for some dealers. Therefore, they rob and kill to make up for the loss of income. Remove the drugs from them (legalize); probability of making money goes to zero. What will they do next? God help us all. It’s common sense…. […]
Close the border. No one leaves and no one enters for a week. Those who attempt to flee can leave and anyone who tries to enter gets shot on the spot. Sometimes you have to make some sacrifices. If you love America you stay, if you don’t get the hell out and don’t come back. […]
You know it’s amazing that MOST of you people who support legalizing, Illegal drugs,do not live anywhere near the Mexican Border or the Drug Wars. Guess most of you are just safe in your little farm houses in Virginia, PA wherever, running your meth labs, making “cheese” and crack for school kids. You are the morons who try to justify what you do, including legalizing illegal substances. And yes, the drug dealer laws are MUCH better in places like China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Do they, any of them have the drug problems that we have in the U.S. and Mexico???? Hell no. They go out chop off a few heads, hang a few, shoot a few and thats the way anti-drug laws should be written in the U.S. Execution cures drug dealing/trafficing. Deterent, YES. […]
This city council is obviously under the influence of: -Drugs -Corruption -Drug Cartels -Total and Complete Insanity. […]
El Paso can be proud of being the illegal drug corridor capital leading into the U.S. and of the drug profits flowing into the pockets of local politicians. The money is so good in fact, they are openly championing it’s use and legalization at our municipal hall. The more users they get, the more money they and their families in the biz make. Who cares if it costs a heavy and often deadly toll on many families, just as long as their family of drug dealers are wealthy and protected. […]
The Dope Dealers and Drug Cartels would love to work in the open and push their poison on even more children, their customers for life. […]
Thank God for Mayor Cook. How stupid is our City Council? Can we get them out of there? They make us look like morons.

Um, actually, no. But you’re doing a pretty good job of it yourself.

Perhaps it time to check how many on City Council are using dope, and want a straight path to it. […]
Once the demand for illegal drugs dries up, the drug cartells murdering will cease also. Why? Because no demand for drugs means zero supply which means no money which means no profit which means no business. The war on drugs must continue at all costs just klike the war on terrorism. […]
I am curious to know what drugs the City Representatives are using? Their actions come across as someone who is “stoned”. […]
I always knew that City Council is composed of a bunch of idiots. […]
This idea by the city council is an act of cowardice,they clearly don’t want to enforce the laws against drug trafficking. They are waving the flag of surrender and also telling us that they don’t have a clue on how to do their job. Have they taken the time to ask the people of El Paso how we really feel about their proposal, they would have saved their time writing this stupid resolution. This is another example that shows that; “just because you went to college and have a fancy title next to your name, it does not makes you smarter.” […]
Legalization of drugs is not the answer and it will not be fair for families that lost loved ones in the figth against drugs. Legalization of drugs is the easy way out of the problem..Lets start with lowering the comsuption of drugs because with out coustumers there will be no drugs. lets take a VERY serious look at family values…how many kids are growing in a single parent home??? THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM..But nobody wants to accept the truth which is that we live in a society in which GOD does not play any role and we are seeing the results, I know! I know! you migth thing that I am a Jesus freak of bible pleacher but this is not the case I do belive in God and know that following him bring stabilization to society… […]
Why don’t we legalize murder while we’re at it? […]
The ONLY thing that makes John Cook less of an idiot than the rest of these ***HOLES, is that he decided to veto the resolution. Should WE be wondering where O’Roark gets his campaign money from?? Any Cartel money in there, yu think??? […]
I lived in Europe for two years where drugs were legalized and society has digressed, their youth have a bleak future due to the widely use of the drugs and many more problems exist due to the drugs. Those who say, lets talk about it are walking a fine line into the darkside.

When did they legalize drugs in Europe?

If we want to really effect the “drug war,” we need to get serious about it. Start giving the worst drug users / pushers death penalties, with a limited window for appeals. […]
Beto is an arrogant jerk who is a product of the new- young-leftist-academic elite that think they know what’s good for the rest of us. Arrogant jerk.

Ah, yes, those arrogant jerks who want us to discuss stuff.

The U.S.gov ernment needs to send in thousands of troops to Juarez and get rid of all the men living in that city!!!! […]
f—— mexicans from mexico there killing our youth with there drugs and all this idiots can say is leagalize drugs so our kids can get destroy themselves more easily, f— mexico and whoever wants to defend mexico go to mexico and fight it out in mexico […]
The city council are cowards and panderers. If they want the violence to stop, the first they need to do is completely secure the border. When that happens, no more drugs will come in, and the drug cartels collapse of their own accord. […]
Prohibition makes drug cartels rich. Making them legal would make them even richer.

OK, that one just confuses me.

You druggies are only preaching to your fellow druggies choir. […]
Most parents try to keep their children away from drugs, while this city council is trying to force them on us. I thought elected represenatives were supposed to protect our children, not harm them.

That’s right – think of the children. What kind of message would it send that we are willing to discuss alternatives to failed policies?
Sigh.